It's always ~1.8* of face angle change for each 1* of "loft" change. This is mathematically/geometrically fixed, it doesn't change based on the design of the adapter or the manufacturer.

Well, in theory, it might be possible for the OEM's to tweak this a bit based on the design of the sole geometry of the club and how it rests on a flat surface - but there is nothing they can do with the design of the adapter itself to change it.

Well, I ask because Titleist's adapter changes lie and loft independently. I was hoping the 410 would simply adjust loft. If I'm hitting something straight, but too high, I don't need the face to change (at rest).

Right now, my 400 is doing well but it's a touch too high so I lose a few metres. When I drop it a degree, it's not straight anymore. Every time I think it'll give me better flight, but the directional misses aren't worth it.

Adding 1.5º upcoming during the winter seems hardly justifiable if I have to shut the face 2.7º. That's second-cut stuff...

Well, I ask because Titleist's adapter changes lie and loft independently. I was hoping the 410 would simply adjust loft. If I'm hitting something straight, but too high, I don't need the face to change (at rest).

Loft and lie can be independent, they are two different (and independent) axis of adjustment. The adapters that do not allow indepencent adjustment is actually a limitation of the adapter design. Just like loft and lie can be adjusted independently on an iron with a bending machine.

But Face angle and loft is not independent, it's really 2 "different" consequences of one type of adjustment.

Well, I ask because Titleist's adapter changes lie and loft independently. I was hoping the 410 would simply adjust loft. If I'm hitting something straight, but too high, I don't need the face to change (at rest).

Loft and lie can be independent, they are two different (and independent) axis of adjustment. The adapters that do not allow indepencent adjustment is actually a limitation of the adapter design. Just like loft and lie can be adjusted independently on an iron with a bending machine.

But Face angle and loft is not independent, it's really 2 "different" consequences of one type of adjustment.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You can choose to adjust one axis. The G30GG400 adapters were designed to adjust along two axes. Big Plus closed the face, Big Minus opened it. To me, that makes them less than ideal when all I want to adjust is flight apex.

So if these 410 adapters do the same thing, the only thing that *seems* handy is that the 3º flat, neutral setting might be handy because it shouldn't influence left-right flight (much; I know it'll have a tendency to push ATBE).

Anyhow, thanks for the information. At least we can now change hybrid shafts.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You can choose to adjust one axis. The G30GG400 adapters were designed to adjust along two axes. Big Plus closed the face, Big Minus opened it. To me, that makes them less than ideal when all I want to adjust is flight apex.

So if these 410 adapters do the same thing, the only thing that *seems* handy is that the 3º flat, neutral setting might be handy because it shouldn't influence left-right flight (much; I know it'll have a tendency to push ATBE).

Anyhow, thanks for the information. At least we can now change hybrid shafts.

Sorry, not sure what exactly you don't understand - so don't know if this will help or not.

My point was simply that:

'loft' (really effective loft) and lie adjustments are done on separate axis - so potentially can be adjusted independently (depending on the adapter design)

'loft' (really effective loft) and face angle is the same adjustment axis - so can't be adjusted independently - no matter how the adapter is designed.

Sometimes the "loft" adjustments are marketed as loft adjustments, sometimes they were marketed as face angle adjustments - despite that, the underlying adjustment is doing the same thing in either case. It's not really a change in design, just different labeling.

If you still don't understand, you might have to clarify where the disconnect is if you want further clarification.

If so, why are they tied together? That's what I don't understand... What's the rationale or whatever that when adjusting the loft, the neutrality goes away?

Does that make more sense?

I'll try, but it's a geometric relationship so not the easiest to explain in just words. But it's centered around the concept of face angle being defined as the direction the face is pointed with the head in it's naturally soled position and the shaft perpendicular to the target line.

OK think of it this way - take a head that's sitting at address in it's naturally soled position and has a zero face angle. Now think about bending the hosel (like you would with an iron) to make the loft lower. You can 'simulate' this by holding your driver at address and, instead of doing anything with the hosel, just tilt the shaft toward the target line to get a little more shaft lean WITHOUT letting the grip twist or changing the direction the face is pointing.

Now the head is no longer in it's naturally soled position and should be sitting up on it's leading edge because of the forward tilt or added loft. But since we are just simulating a change down at the hosel, from the simulated shaft is still perpendicular to the target line. The position we need it to be in to measure the face angle. So how do we get the head back to it's naturally soled position without changing which direction the shaft axis is pointing?

There is only one way for it to get back to it's naturally soled position - and that is to let it twist around the shaft axis in a way that opens up the face so that the sole get's back down on the ground. Now we have back in it's naturally soled position but with the more open face angle. All just because we changed the effective loft from a hosel adjustment (or from bending a hosel).

It's easier to understand once you see how the shaft is leaning at the various settings. When it leans forward, that means that when you set it (at address) back to plumb, you'll see the face close and the loft increase. When it leans backwards, the opposite happens. When it leans upright, well, that's upright. And down is flatter.

And because the Ping adapters are the simple kind, the adjustments simply lean the shaft to different places on the compass or "clock". Saying the adjustments offer 3 flat options is marketing, IMO. When the shaft points to anything south of 90 degrees (3 o'clock) to 270 (9 o'clock) the lie is flatter. This is something that was done on similar adapters for a decade. The only difference is that you can call the southern leans flatter and the northern ones normal, or you can call the southern leans normal, and the northern ones upright. Sounds like Ping has flattened the overall "native" lie of the hosel and is calling them normal and flatter.

Hold the shaft in front of you with the tip out at eye level. Rotate it and watch the change in where the tip points. You'll get it.

The compound adapters which have additional rings are much harder to explain and envision. They can do lie adjustments separate from the loft/face angle one.

Well, I ask because Titleist's adapter changes lie and loft independently. I was hoping the 410 would simply adjust loft. If I'm hitting something straight, but too high, I don't need the face to change (at rest).

Loft and lie can be independent, they are two different (and independent) axis of adjustment. The adapters that do not allow indepencent adjustment is actually a limitation of the adapter design. Just like loft and lie can be adjusted independently on an iron with a bending machine.

But Face angle and loft is not independent, it's really 2 "different" consequences of one type of adjustment.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You can choose to adjust one axis. The G30GG400 adapters were designed to adjust along two axes. Big Plus closed the face, Big Minus opened it. To me, that makes them less than ideal when all I want to adjust is flight apex.

So if these 410 adapters do the same thing, the only thing that *seems* handy is that the 3º flat, neutral setting might be handy because it shouldn't influence left-right flight (much; I know it'll have a tendency to push ATBE).

Anyhow, thanks for the information. At least we can now change hybrid shafts.

If you want a lower flight. Try changing to a lower spin shaft or go a flex stiffer or tee the ball lower or to a ball with less spin.

I would argue that because of the way adjustable hosels work (askew in a clock-like fashion), that there is no true "neutral face". Neutral would be a bonded hosel that is in perfectly straight. So you are forced to pick a slightly different angle than the true lie and face angle. Loft never really changes...just marketing IMO.

I just got a g410 3 wood and when you go use +1.5* loft on neutral it is very noticeably closed. When you use the +1.0* loft on the flat setting the the face does not seem as closed. Since I don’t have anything to actual measure them or set them side by side to compare it is really subjective. I have a hard time swinging and hitting anything with a noticeable closed face. I have not tried hitting it in the +1.0 flat setting maybe I will be able to. It’s amazing what you hear will make you do just b cause the way it looks.